Carroll Quigley Quotes

Without the U. N., world politics is inconceivable.

I'm a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy.

The Disarmament Conference has become the focal point of a great struggle between anarchy and world order... between those who think in terms of inevitable armed conflict and those who seek to build a universal and durable peace.

We shouldn't discuss the world of tomorrow in terms of becoming a balance to the United States. The real issue is whether the United States will define herself as part of the U.N. system-or not.

What we need now is a Treaty of the World not a Treaty of Rome.

There is no such thing as the United Nations.

So I've gone in and out of the U.N., working on counter-terrorism, on U.N. reform, on peacekeeping, peace and security issues, many things through the years but always with a strong interest in humanitarian issues, and human rights issues as well.

It is a commonplace that the League of Nations is not yet-what its most enthusiastic protagonists intended it to be.

India seeks to be a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council... things like this don't happen automatically, you need constant dialogue and discussion with the world.

The logic of collective security is flawless, provided it can be made to work under the conditions prevailing on the international scene... The odds, however, are strongly against such a possibility.

I think the American people, understandably, have sort of lost faith in the United Nations.

But I would say if the Security Council is only relevant if it agrees with the United States, then we have come a long way in a direction that I do not like very much.

If governments do not want to work with the U.N. and the international organizations, there is a limit to what you can do. And there is also a limit to patience.

No country can dictate its laws to the world.

The United Nations is a failed institution in its current form.

World government is a premature concept at this stage. We are moving more and more into supernational arrangements, but it is too early still.

You cannot have individual foreign policy. You cannot have celebrity foreign policy.

The United Nations is really the League of Nations 2.0

My observation on most people in national governments is that they have very little interest in and very little knowledge of the multinational institutions.

U.S. academics and Upper East Side New Yorkers like to think of the United Nations as a place where foreign ambassadors have intellectual discussions about power and world peace.

There is, and there will be, an increasing demand for a principled global security provider, for a superpower that believes in multilateralism and cooperation.

The world order and American actions in the world have deep wiring.

We have to acknowledge and discuss with citizens that Germany needs to take on more responsibility. One of the questions is, 'Can we keep a functioning international order?'

There was an implicit conviction that the UN would be stronger than the sum of its constituent member-states.

As long as the problem of world reconstruction remains the center of interest for all nations, blocs having similar attitudes will form and operate even within the League itself.